TWTP... is it worth it?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
41

<p>Ladyk, you said, "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."</p>

<p>Does this mean that as a white student, I have the choice to surround myself only with other white students, and you would consider that integration?</p>

<p>And Brunonian 2010, yes, indeed I was on campus in fall 06, that is the event I am describing. What do you honestly expect the police to do when they encounter someone who fit the description of a police call made minutes earlier who runs away from the officer when asked to show his Brown ID? It is a Brown rule that if you are on camus and asked to show your ID that you must do so, it is also the police's constitutional right to stop you on the street and then if you flee, you are resisting arrest which allows them to consider you a suspicious person and restrain you.</p>

<p>sorry, that was horribly written, but I think you catch my drift.</p>

42

<p>I am a student of color. I agree with modestmelody on this one. Too often at Brown, activities either explicitly or implicitly created for students of color are given a blank check to do whatever the hell they want. TWTP was great, lots of fun, and I agree that there were opportunities to talk about things in ways that we wouldn't have been able to if there had been a large number of white people in the room. But ladyk, I think you are entirely ignoring the content of modestmelody's posts. He is simply saying that TWTP creates unnecessary segregation. The fact that segregation already exists and would exist anyways absolutely does not imply that TWTP does not cause segregation. Think about that carefully, because it's important. My first friends were from TWTP. When I was an RC, the kids who came early for TWTP self-segregated, even from the other students of color who had not come to TWTP. As far as I am concerned, it is an undeniable fact that TWTP promotes segregation.</p>

<p>Now, I am not against TWTP. Just as I don't think a man could ever be fully qualified to be a WPC, I don't think there is much place for whites at TWTP. I enjoyed my experience there, but there were certainly things to which I could not relate. Did I not belong there, then?</p>

<p>I feel the bottom line is that, while self-segregation will probably exist through our lifetimes, we need to try to move forward and stop holding ourselves back through our own constructs. Yes, people of color in this country are still discriminated against. But the glass ceiling of racism is crumbling, now more than ever before. Even if some people of color are still at the bottom, there are many who are reaching the top. And after all, who are the people of color who are making it to the top, anyways? The real issue these days is class.</p>

43

<p>A question to consider--</p>

<p>Would TWTP suffer tremendously by changing into a retreat that occurs two weeks after students get on campus on the weekend? Because honestly, at that point, all (generally) students will have the same kind of orientation opportunity and experience and will acclimate a similar way. The space is still there for minority students to talk about issues out in the world and now, even experienced here at Brown, in a way they cannot when I'm in the room. In fact, at this point, for the retreat, you may have less students just hoping to move in before the rush and anxious to get out of the home and instead have a more self-selected group of students actually concerned with some of these issues or actually now, after two weeks, finding themselves having difficulty adjusting to Brown, perhaps, because of race.</p>

<p>I'd argue there is reason to suspect that this kind of program is equally powerful with the potential to be more powerful when compared to a program which frames your first experience at Brown around race and race issues.</p>

<p>Is that accurate? I'm not sure. But it seems to me like all of the benefits you're touting would still be there and the potential negatives that I and others have seen in the TWTP program would be largely eliminated.</p>

44

<p>Modestmeldy I'm happy to see that the progression our argument has been maintained in light of the heavily emotional content. I completely agree with ladyk and I think it is because I know where her sense of anger and frustration is coming from and I challenge you to think harder about his/her assertions.</p>

<p>So you're arguing to change the timing of the program to reduce self segregation at Brown and to make it more powerful. </p>

<p>I disagree. Your argument is still based on the presumption that TWTP causes "self-segregation." I agree with you that two weeks (prior to your proposed TWTP date change) of unit dinners, discussion, and bonding will foster cross-cultural friendships. But I do not think that such bonding will PREVENT black people from having mostly black friends, or whites from having the same fate. My previous post shows that every Ivy League University experiences this same phenomenon. What is more, the list of friends that Brown students make when they are freshmen is not static. I continue to immerse myself in cultures that I am unfamiliar with and make friendships with people across all racial lines. I think a program that fosters that kind of community building is where we should spend our efforts.</p>

<p>With regard to your second argument...People at Brown experience racism on their FIRST day on campus. TWTP empowers student to deal with racism, underscores resources available to them on campus, and forms a community of color so that students of color can deal with racism at Brown, which is alive and well. Why then, should we hold off on this empowerment because white students at Brown falsely assert that TWTP causes "self-segregation?" I challenge you to see the white privilege operating in that dynamic. This timing change will not strengthen TWTP but weaken its members, negatively effecting the program.</p>

<p>Finally what I find even most troubling is Franglish's post. The TWTP group continually meets after the program....MOST Brown students know this, it's weird that you don't. There are Unity Days every month, TWTP Teach-in, History Month events, and MPC workshops, all of which are open to white students. In fact TWTP has its "Rapping and Dining" component where participants bring their white unit mates to Andrews to talk about what TWTP is about. Last year SEVERAL white students attended and the event was incredibly successful.</p>

<p>And iwannabebrown we can have a separate conversatioin about police brutality. I can send you my email if you want. Fact of the matter, when a white police officer beats down a black student you cannot ignore its historical context. And the case I cited was one of many examples of police brutality at Brown.</p>

45

<p>Sorry, Brunonian, I am ignorant because I am a parent, not a student. I am glad to hear that the program is ongoing! Thanks.</p>

46

<p>“I refer to your tone right here in this thread, and not some stereotypical vision of the angry militant African American.”</p>

<p>Then why the “Malcom ****ing X” ?</p>

<p>How about, instead of talking about me being angry/too emotional/ a stereotypical “Malcom X” type (all of these things are loaded with racism), we talk about racism itself and what/who is racist/reverse racist/segregationist/assimilationist?</p>

<p>So, getting back to the topic at hand</p>

<p>In terms of the study. True there are more white students than students of color. What I’m saying is that students of color ARE more likely to friend a white student BECAUSE most students of color do not see any problem with being friends with a white student. What I’m saying with the study is that clearly students of color have not all or even mostly separated themselves. If they did, very few students of color would have any white friends.</p>

<p>“I don't feel discriminated against or stereotyped or oppressed and don't feel ugly and haven't "internalized" messages that I'm ugly.” – that’s great for you, but not every person of color feels that way. Are other people of color allowed to disagree? There should be a space for you AND a space like TWTP for people of color whom do feel like they’ve been discriminated against and/or who do feel like examining systems of internalized racism and self-hatred and/or who do feel like learning about the ways (through other isms) that we as people of color oppress each other and perpetuate internalized messages of oppression.</p>

<p>“Does this mean that as a white student, I have the choice to surround myself only with other white students, and you would consider that integration?”</p>

<p>Yes and yes. Whites get to make that choice too. Why force a white person who doesn’t want to be friends with a person of color? The point is that through other venues at Brown and through events at the TWC, whites have the space to meet people of color and have those friends. I’m not sure if this is clear but what I’m saying is that there needs to be a space for interaction AND space to allow separation AND an opportunity for different people from different backgrounds to make a choice.</p>

<p>TWTP could be moved but the issue of “self-segregation” would still be there in the same magnitude because the “self-segregation” IS NOT CAUSED by TWTP.</p>

<p>After TWTP there are events for the people at TWTP to continue meeting. At these events people meet new people WHO WERE NOT AT TWTP and become CLOSE FRIENDS with them. The issue is not TWTP so much as it is the lack of white students at/involved in events that are meant for them after TWTP.</p>

47

<p>ladyk, I definitely need some more clarification here. I do not see how any rational person can say that someone who defines their friends on the basis of skin tone is not a racist. To me, this is practically the epitome of racism because it's condoning someone saying "I don't want to hang out with him because he's [insert race here]." If this is what you think is acceptable, why is it not acceptable for private institutions to do the same? If it's perfectly acceptable for me to say "I don't want to be around/be friends with minorities" why is it not acceptable for the Director of Admissions at Brown to determine that minorities have no place at the school?</p>

<p>The only way I could possibly interpret what you're saying to not mean that you support racism is if you mean that people have the right to be racist, but being racist is still wrong. Even then, I don't see how you can claim people have the right to do something that is wrong, and even more so, how you can get angry at people whom you claim are racist if you think being racist is ok.</p>

48

<p>I'm not here to discuss the greater race relation issues in this country. I simply stated, quite calmly, that as an outsider I witnessed and felt that TWTP had a hand in facilitating self-segregation. My understanding is that the program was originally intended to ensure that a group of incoming students which may not be as comfortably acculturated in the Brown community can see, face first, the various support systems and resources we have available on campus specifically tailored to smooth the transition to being a Brown student and the issues one may face as a student at Brown. Often, TWTP comes under fire because groups like first generation college students, who potentially will have the same difficulties adjusting and may require additional resources as well to address their concerns, do not get the same support.</p>

<p>It wasn't a judgment as much as a statement of observation.</p>

<p>While I don't discredit or even want to address the tremendous scope of argument being made in this thread, my observations and opinions are my own which I freely share. You can disagree with me, but I think that the rhetoric, especially initially, was largely uncalled for an inappropriate for this discussion and this space and that caused me to have a knee-jerk reaction. I apologize if this offends you, but I simply had to roll my eyes to see the way you approached this situation despite the merit of your actual discussion. I know the argument is there is a right and need for both anger and frustration and I don't disagree, but where, when, and how that is expressed can mean the difference between a fruitful conversation and meaningless argument over diction and semantics.</p>

<p>In my experience, TWTP, most especially due to when it takes place, can have a negative impact on all Brown students. Whether the empowerment gained by that program to confront day one type issues outweighs this impact, I cannot judge. Whether reflective discussion on what occurred is not as useful as proactive discussion as a starting point, I cannot judge.</p>

<p>I personally feel as though I've said what I have to say on the issue and if you're dissatisfied with the conclusions I've come to, so be it, but that's just one outsiders perspective on the program.</p>

49

<p>"Whether the empowerment gained by that program to confront day one type issues outweighs this impact, I cannot judge. Whether reflective discussion on what occurred is not as useful as proactive discussion as a starting point, I cannot judge."</p>

<p>Then do not judge TWTP.</p>

50

<p>I can identify a problem without condemning a program. I can offer a solution to that problem and wonder whether or not the same purpose can be achieved without condemning the program.</p>

<p>That's all I really sought to do.</p>

51

<p>Personally, I was very surprised about the use of the name "Third World" for the program. For decades, it has not been "politically correct" anymore. The name itself carries a certain connotation and the countries that at some point were "included", always felt like second class citizens and their governments resented the use.</p>

<p>At the end, it is just a matter of individual perceptions which makes the flying accusations of whether it is racist or not irrelevant. I think the attention should be given to whether those that the term is used for approve its use...or find it offensive. Clearly, "First World" students would not be able to experience the same emotions, regardless of "how many third world students friends " they may have.</p>

<p>An example of this is the term "latino". Some hispanics find the term derogatory. "Latino people" originated from a slang usually associated to describe poor hispanics primarily from Mexico who had migrated to California and Texas. If you give a survey to multiple different nationalities from Latin America, you will never get any Argentinians, Chileans, Cubans and Colombians for instance, to describe themselves as "latino" but rather as "hispanics". You present the same question to immigrants from Mexico and Puerto Rico that live in the United States and they will have no problem circling "latino" in the survey. Clearly there is a certain identification with the term for some and not for others. </p>

<p>The same thing happens to Third World, always felt to be like an arrogant way of rich privileged nations referring to others. The term "emerging nations" became more acceptable. What is Brown's explanation to stick to Third World ? I really have no idea. The issue is way too complex, multicultural and emotional.</p>

<p>Perhaps it would be an excellent discussion that those participating could initiate if they decide to bring it up.</p>

52

<p>MyOpinion ....you are way off. </p>

<p>Go educate yourself @ Brown</a> University Third World Center</p>

<p>Modestmelody your right you can offer solutions to problems you see with the program. But the problem that you have raised I have disproved. "Self-segregation" is a non-issue.</p>

53

<p>brunonian2010, in case you didn't notice, i created a thread for us to discuss the police brutality issue</p>

54

<p>I attended TWTP this past fall, and I have to say that modestmelody is mostly right. The program, like any pre-orientation program, encourages self-segregation. If you put any group of 300 people in a room for three days before they get to meet anybody else, they're obviously going to be more likely to be friends with each other than with the people they meet later. It's true for the TWTP kids, the UCAAP kids, the IMP kids, and especially true for the athletes. I met many of my friends through TWTP, and most of their friends are other TWTP participants. At the beginning of the year and for the first few weeks, all of my friends were other TWTP particpants. Why would you ditch the friends you've already made just because more people have shown up on campus? I'm sure other campuses have self-segregation too, but it's ridiculous to think that TWTP does not contribute at least a little in deciding who your friends are.</p>

<p>I'm not saying this is a bad thing, necessarily, either. In fact, the main reason I went to TWTP in the first place was so I could move in early and meet people in a low-pressure setting. For many people, this is the primary attraction of the program. My host for TWW the previous spring told me to go to TWTP specifically because it was where he met all of his friends. </p>

<p>What I would recommend is an extended orientation period with different programs available for students of all different backgrounds. These programs should only go for half a day each day, though, with the remainder of the day taken up by activities for everyone so freshmen could make friends easily with people in any of the programs.</p>

55

<p>"What I would recommend is an extended orientation period with different programs available for students of all different backgrounds. These programs should only go for half a day each day, though, with the remainder of the day taken up by activities for everyone so freshmen could make friends easily with people in any of the programs."</p>

<p>I agree and have been talking to TWTP leadership about institutionalizing such a program.</p>

<p>"it's ridiculous to think that TWTP does not contribute at least a little in deciding who your friends are."</p>

<p>I also agree. That is one of the many goals of the program.</p>

<p>I have to reiterate my argument. TWTP in and of itself does not cause separation. It is a societal problem in America. Benjaminx, I urge you to read earlier posts in more depth. </p>

<p>Even your comment gets at this idea. "At the beginning of the year and for the first few weeks, all of my friends were other TWTP particpants." What about now? Now that you have finished your freshman year are ALL of your firends TWTP partcipants?</p>

56

<p>there is a difference between individuals and institutions/legal policy.
An individual student having friends of a certain color is not the same as Brown University making policy</p>

<p>Those two things are just not the same</p>

<p>Racism = prejudice + POWER</p>

<p>how does someone else chosing their friends have power over you? that doesn't oppress you, that has nothing to do with you. how would a group of students of color coming early to discuss being a person of color, finding identity, and promoting self-empowerment-- i.e. a group of people coming together to have a private conversation about themselves, have power over others when it haw nothing to do with them?</p>

<p>And, having a space like TWTP for incoming students of color to be empowered by their identities as people of color is not the same as sanctioning KKK or allowing for a white only school that has far greater funding and resources then other schools.</p>

<p>These two things are not the same. This is what I mean when I say that the law promotes colorblindness/race-less-ness and that in trying to run from segregation we as a society have jumped to the other extreme which is equally racist of not “seeing” race, of not wanting to acknowledge it’s there and of not allowing people to have private conversations/spaces/programs to explore their racial (or for that matter gender, sexuality, class) backgrounds. People should be allowed to have private spaces to explore their identity which may differ from the mainstream. It should NOT be considered illegal or "racist" to have a twtp that is only for students of color given that twtp is created by people of color and funded by alumni of color. Fraternities privately run/funded are associated/present on college campuses all the time and allowed to create their own rules for initiation, as should be the case with twtp.</p>

<p>Lastly my point about friends was this: considering someone “racist” simply because their group of friends happens to be of a certain racial mix or not of a certain racial mix is to force assimilation. It’s basically saying everyone MUST have inter-racial friends in order to not be racist which is tokenizing and simplistic.</p>

<p>Just because someone chooses to be friends with people who happen to share their racial background, does not make them racist. It doesn’t mean they hate the other race(s). It just means that people of those backgrounds happen to not be among their group of friends, that those people choose not to actively seek out an inter-racial group of friends. Are we honestly saying that someone MUST have friends of every race to not be racist? By that logic someone must have female friends to not be sexist, maybe someone must have gay friends to not be homophobic? I’m not saying people shouldn’t have friends from different backgrounds I’m just saying that NOT having friends of certain backgrounds does not, automatically make someone “racist”. As in, if there are people of color who happen to be friends with other people of color, then that is their choice. They chose a group of friends based on what was important to them on a personal level, this does not mean they are racist—it does not mean they picked their group of friends only because of race, it does not mean that on a larger institutional, social, and/or political level they think a certain way. It could be as simple as being Latina and wanting to speak in your native language as much as possible and therefore being attracted to other Latinas who are able to communicate to you in a way that is familiar so all or most of your close friends wind up being Latina. Now, maybe you wouldn’t pick friends that way but if others want to, shouldn’t they be allowed to? Is allowing for someone to have friendships like that racist? </p>

<p>If you would say yes then you are assimilationist. You believe that people should not have a choice in who their friends are. You believe that everyone no matter what should have friends who are of every single racial background and if they do not have friends like that it is because they are "racist". To think that way is colorblind, it is to not take any racial or cultural factors into account in thinking about the things people relate on and how friendship is formed. To think that way is racist and assimilationist.</p>

57

<p>Brunonian 2010, It is actually you, the one who is way off.</p>

<p>According to your reference (which I happen to be very familiar with, btw):</p>

<p>WHAT DOES “THIRD WORLD” MEAN?</p>

<p>Students first began using the term "Third World" over "minority" because of the negative connotations of inferiority and powerlessness with which the word "minority" is often associated. Although the term "Third World" may have negative socioeconomic connotations outside of Brown, Third World students here continue to use the term in the context originating form the Civil Rights Movement.</p>

<p>1- The statement acknowledges that the "term" has negative connotations outside of Brown.</p>

<p>2- The "term" has nothing to do with the "context originating from the Civil Rights Movement". That is definitely a big stretch. Perhaps what happened is that some people in the Civil Rights Movement borrowed the "term". The fact that group decided to give it a different "meaning" does not make any more acceptable to the rest of the world. </p>

<p>3- "Students here continue to use...." because it has already been named that and I do not believe anyone has been given the choice to name it something different. I know too many students that do not like to participate because of the negative connotations that the term has for them.</p>

<p>These students, whom I happen to be friends with, felt that if they went, they indeed would be segregated because they were the first group of people they were going to meet. They did not want that. And that, my fellow brunonian is another fact.</p>

58

<p>MyOpinion I think you are an idiot and refuse to respond to anymore of your posts. </p>

<p>Ladyk you can respond if you like. I'd prefer spending my energy responding to capable people.</p>

59

<p>Ok, so some students of color don’t like the way other students of color use the term “third world” and they decided not to go to twtp because they did not see themselves as needing that space. Sounds cool to me, however, if your argument is that we should change the term used or not have twtp I would disagree. Students of color on campus who use the term, use it in the context described on the website if other students don’t like the term then those specific students just shouldn’t use it. If other students feel that twtp would cause them to segregate (which is there perception on how twtp would affect them and NOT a valid argument for stating twtp causes segregation in general and NOT a valid argument for twtp causing every student that attends to segregate themselves…it’s simply their opinion/perception not backed by any kind of actual data or real facts), then those specific students just shouldn’t go. Not every student of color needs to use the same term or go to the same programs.</p>

60

<p>Also. you only used the begining of the discription which shows that you are NOT familiar with the material at all. here is the full reason:</p>

<p>"Students first began using the term “Third World” instead of “minority” because of the negative connotations of inferiority and powerlessness with which the word “minority” is often associated. Although the term “Third World” may have negative socioeconomic connotations outside of Brown, students at Brown continue to use the term in the context that originated in the Civil Rights Movement. Frantz Fanon, author of The Wretched of the Earth (1961), urged readers to band together against oppression and colonialism by pioneering a “Third Way,” meaning an alternative to the ways of the first world (U.S. & Europe) and the second world (USSR & Eastern Europe). When students adopted the term “Third World,” they used it to convey a sense of a cultural model of empowerment and liberation. Brown students of color continue to use the term “Third World” in a similar fashion: to describe an awareness of the commonalities and links shared by their diverse communities. Using the term “Third World” reminds students of the power they have in communicating and uniting across marginalized communities to create a safer and more open place for all people. This awareness at Brown also reflects the right, desire, and necessity for people of color and others to define themselves instead of being defined by others.
For students of color at Brown, the concept of “Third World” has special meaning. Not to be confused with the more commonly used economic definition of the term, it is understood as a term that celebrates diverse cultures and, for many students, represents a spirit of empowerment and liberation."</p>