Neo-Segre- gation A report by the at Yale April 2019 This report is part of a larger project, titled Separate but Equal, Again: Neo-segregation in American Higher Education Dion J. Pierre Peter W. Wood Research Associate President, NAS Neo-Segre- gation at Yale ISBN: 978-0-9986635-8-6 Cover Design by Chance Layton, Photo by Shalom Mwenesi © 2019 National Association of Scholars About the National Association of Scholars Mission The National Association of Scholars is an independent membership asso- ciation of academics and others working to sustain the tradition of reasoned scholarship and civil debate in America’s colleges and universities. We uphold the standards of a liberal arts education that fosters intellectual freedom, searches for the truth, and promotes virtuous citizenship. What We Do We publish a quarterly journal, Academic Questions, which examines the intellectual controversies and the institutional challenges of contemporary higher education. We publish studies of current higher education policy and practice with the aim of drawing attention to weaknesses and stimulating improvements. Our website presents a stream of educated opinion and commentary on higher education, and archives our research reports for public access. NAS engages in public advocacy to pass legislation to advance the cause of higher education reform. We file friend-of-the-court briefs in legal cases, defending freedom of speech and conscience, and the civil rights of educators and students. We give testimony before congressional and legislative commit- tees and engage public support for worthy reforms. NAS holds national and regional meetings that focus on important issues and public policy debates in higher education today. Membership NAS membership is open to all who share a commitment to its core prin- ciples of fostering intellectual freedom and academic excellence in American higher education. A large majority of our members are current and former faculty members. We also welcome graduate and undergraduate students, teachers, college administrators, and independent scholars, as well as non-ac- ademic citizens who care about the future of higher education. NAS members receive a subscription to our journal Academic Questions and access to a network of people who share a commitment to academic free- dom and excellence. We offer opportunities to influence key aspects of con- temporary higher education. Visit our website, www.nas.org, to learn more about NAS and to become a member. Introduction and Acknowledgments Peter W. Wood President his study of racial segregation at Yale University is part of a larger project examining neo-segregation in American higher education in the period 1964-2019. During those fifty-five years, many American Tcolleges and universities that initially sought to achieve racial integration found themselves inadvertently on a path to a new form of racial segregation. In the old form of segregation, colleges excluded black students or severely limited the number who were admitted. Similar policies were applied to other minority groups. By contrast, in the new form of segregation (neo-segrega- tion), colleges eagerly recruit black and other minority students, but actively foster campus arrangements that encourage these students to form separate social groups on campus. Manifestations of this policy include racially sepa- rate student orientations, racially-identified student centers, racially-identi- fied student counseling, racially-identified academic programs, racially sep- arate student activities, racially-specific political agendas, racially-exclusive graduation ceremonies, and racially-organized alumni groups. In some cases, colleges also encourage racially exclusive student housing. Our larger project is titled “Separate but Equal, Again: Neo-segregation in American Higher Education.” Our study of Yale is the first part of our published findings. Other parts include historical examinations of neo-seg- regation at Wesleyan University and Brown University; a national survey of neo-segregation at 173 colleges and universities across the country; and a substantial interpretative essay on our findings. We may have additional case studies as well before the project is complete. We are releasing the Yale report as a stand-alone document because it merits attention in its own right. Readers who are unfamiliar with National Association of Scholars research reports may be surprised by the density of detail and the emphasis on original sources. We have developed this approach in the last decade through a series of studies on controversial topics in higher education including What Does Bowdoin Teach?; Sustainability; Inside Divestment; Making Citizens; and Outsourced to China. The barriers to open debate on these topics are often high, and anything less than a finely detailed and scrupulously documented account is frequently dismissed as anecdotal, cherry-picked, speculative, or otherwise unworthy of further attention. Our aim, therefore, is to provide studies that cannot be dismissed, and to that end we embrace thoroughness. But we also strive for readability. In the case of Neo-Segregation at Yale, we have a powerful story to tell, with a full range of vanity and folly alongside high aspirations. The reader will readily spot—and likely skip over— the passages where we fill in detail merely for the sake of completeness. Those passages, however, fulfill our commitment to telling the story whole. We are grateful to the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation, James Callan, K. Thomas Noell, and our many Anonymous donors for the financial support that made this study possible. Co ntents 10 Preface 35 Race at Yale Today 43 Part I. The Rise of Black Admissions and Afro American Studies, 1960-1969 71 Part II. The Black Panther Crisis 89 Part III.Yale’s Segregated Orientation Programs 143 Part IV. Segregated Mentorship Programs 167 Part V. Safe Spaces 195 Part VI. Remaining Considerations 209 Conclusion Co ntents 10 Preface 35 Race at Yale Today 43 Part I. The Rise of Black Admissions and Afro American Studies, 1960-1969 71 Part II. The Black Panther Crisis 89 Part III.Yale’s Segregated Orientation Programs 143 Part IV. Segregated Mentorship Programs 167 Part V. Safe Spaces 195 Part VI. Remaining Considerations 209 Conclusion 10 Preface Separate But Equal, Again: Neo-Segregation in American Higher Education Peter W. Wood hen I first heard of racially segregated graduation ceremonies at Ivy League colleges, I was astonished. That was in the Spring of 2016, and despite the recent spread of Black Lives Matter protests Wand numerous instances of black student groups issuing capital D “Demands,” I still assumed that the ultimate goal of the activists was a just and fair soci- ety. We might disagree about how to achieve justice and what exactly fairness might entail, I thought, but surely all Americans agree that racial division is unjust, unfair, and destructive. I was born in late 1953, a few months before the U.S. Supreme Court is- sued its decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka. In that case, the justices decided by a vote of nine to zero to overturn a previous ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson. In this 1896 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution permitted racial segregation laws in public facilities if the separate facilities were equal in quality. The shorthand for the Plessy decision was "separate but equal,” and under that rubric Jim Crow segregation reigned in the American 11 South for the next 58 years. The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown demol- ished the “separate but equal” façade. The justices observed that the legalistic subterfuge of “racially separate” almost never resulted in “facilities” that were of equal quality. Especially in schools, racial segregation generally meant that black students were provided fewer resources, inferior opportuni- ties, and a lesser education. For many years, scholars picked over the Supreme Court’s findings in Brown. There have been learned arguments that the Court gave too much weight to some kinds of evidence and not enough to other kinds. But experts and the public alike generally came to agree that the Court was right to overturn Plessy. The separate-but-equal doctrine was unworthy of America. It gave a legal pretext for what everyone knew was a lie: state-sponsored segregation was never meant to be an avenue towards racial equality. It was meant to be what it was: a form of racial oppression. A nation founded on the principle that “All men are created equal,” and on the rule of law, should not have enshrined the idea that the citizens should be divided by race. Whatever the quibbles the experts might have had over how the Supreme Court reached its decision in Brown, Americans came to embrace the central finding that the government should not engage in racial segregation. I belong to the generation of Americans who grew up believing that this was more than just a legal matter. It was—and is—a moral principle. Segregation is wrong, whether it is imposed by government fiat or by the policy of some private entity. Segregated lunch counters in privately-owned restaurants and segregated movie theatres in privately-owned cinemas were as bad as segregated government facilities. The moral certitudes of youth often run into complications as we get older. At some point I began to wonder if my sense that segregation was always bad made sense in contexts such as black churches and black colleges, places where racial segregation was plainly the result of individuals making free choices about how they wished to live their lives. I began to make allowances for these, but I remained committed to the basic principle that racial segrega- tion is wrong—except in certain instances. My, and others, willingness to make allowances was anticipated by the Supreme Court. It had evolved the practice of “strict scrutiny.” That meant that any time the government wanted to classify people by race, it had to come up with a compelling reason and sound evidence that it couldn’t accomplish whatever public good it was seeking in another way.