Money and race divide Brown students into cliques. Brown promised us upon admission that we would connect with individuals of various backgrounds; however, merely placing us on the same campus and expecting us to intentionally seek out people of different upbringings is both unrealistic and unattainable. It makes students unprepared for the socioeconomic and racial diversity of individuals that exists outside the condensed bubble of College Hill.
Although our student body comprises a variety of backgrounds, Brown students tend to only interact with people who share their identities. As a result, cycles of ignorance and insensitivity continue. The solution lies in not only increasing the rates of racial and socioeconomic diversity on campus, but also preventing people from self-segregating.
At least, based on my experience.
We can start by examining Brown’s racial demographics. The official Brown website has neglected to post recent data on students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds, but external sources report that, in 2022, out of the undergraduate and graduate student population, 39 percent of students are White, 15.8 percent Asian, 10.2 percent Hispanic or Latino, 7.04 percent Black or African American, 5.39 percent Two or More Races, 0.312 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.131 percent Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. International students are not included in those statistics. In fact, the makeup of Brown’s student body turns out to be representative of the diversity found in the United States.
Brown has recently made an effort, genuine or not, to diversify its student body. The University’s Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) was released in February 2016 with the goal of creating “a more diverse and inclusive community and [ensuring] that this work is centered in all aspects of University life.” While well-intentioned, it is unclear whether any significant progress has been made to achieve these objectives in the six years since the program was launched. I was not able to retrieve data from Brown about current demographics to confirm the status of DIAP but rather had to consult external sources as mentioned above.
In addition to racial diversity, there are wide socioeconomic discrepancies on campus. Think of the people you have met at Brown: How many of them grew up under similar financial circumstances as you? Is money even a topic of conversation?
It is now. A study of anonymous tax records in 2017 showed how economically skewed several colleges actually are. The median family income of a Brown student was $204,200. Nineteen percent of students come from families whose income falls within the top 1 percent of earners, and 70 percent of students come from the top 20 percent. Thus, Brown parents have the highest median income among the Ivy League and other elite universities. According to data from 1980 to 1991, the percentage of students coming from the bottom 60 percent and the top 20 percent, 10 percent, and 1 percent remained constant during that decade. It is likely that a similar problem exists today.
Although admissions are need-blind and aid for middle and low-income domestic students can be generous, most students come from wealthy families. International students, for whom admissions are need-aware, often skew wealthy.
That does not come as a surprise. Money buys fancy things, like huge halls to decorate the campus and resources that allow Brown to achieve academic excellence, boast prestigious research facilities, and invest in community-building. In addition, wealthy students preserve Brown’s image as a highly renowned university while guaranteeing alumni donations down the road.
It is clear that Brown must make significant progress in increasing racial and socioeconomic diversity on campus. However, even with these somewhat hopeful numbers and the possible efforts underway, why do some of my classes seem to be full of students with similar backgrounds?
The answer can be found in a paradox described by a British statistician named Edward Hugh Simpson. Simpson’s paradox is a statistical phenomenon in which a trend or association that appears when data is examined as a whole disappears or reverses when the data is divided into subgroups. It occurs when the effect of a confounding variable is not properly accounted for or is hidden when analyzing the data holistically. This can lead to false conclusions, which have important implications in fields such as medicine, social science, economics, and, in this case, demographics.
For example, consider a study that examines the relationship between race and admission rates to a university. When looking at the data as a whole, it may appear that people of color are admitted at a higher rate than white individuals. However, when the data is separated by department, it may actually be the case that white students are admitted at a higher rate in every department. The paradox arises because the proportion of white students and students of color in each department is different. This disparity is a confounding variable that is not properly accounted for in the initial analysis.
Take a class at Brown that is predominantly Black. Just because the class has a large percentage of Black students does not necessarily mean that there is a higher number of Black students at Brown as compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Instead, it might merely indicate that a lot of Black students happened to take the same class.
Even outside of classes, Simpson’s paradox might be present in the way we self-divide into friend groups or join student-run organizations. Thus, the problem lies not only in the amount of racial and socioeconomic diversity on campus, but rather how we interact with each other; the diversity of our friend groups, our acquaintances, and our roommates.
The self-segregation of students into exclusive social groups is a predictable phenomenon. According to a study by social psychologist Angela Bahns, “in more diverse environments, we find less diverse friendships.” This phenomenon is due to multiple factors: peoples’ tendency to gravitate toward things similar to them and a lack of investment into relationships because there are plenty of other available options.
So, is it safe to say that the high percentage of wealthy and white students justify Brown’s lack of efforts to blend its student body?
Absolutely not. Educational institutions like Brown should be actively working to expose students to people of diverse ethnic, racial, and financial backgrounds. Not doing so risks cultivating a student body that is out of touch with important global issues—including racism and socioeconomic disparities.
Indeed, there are many real-life scandals that might have been avoided if the perpetrators were more socioeconomically aware.
Take the college admissions scandal in 2019, when wealthy parents paid bribes to get their children into elite universities, often under the guise of being recruited as athletes. This scandal highlighted the ways in which socioeconomic privilege can lead to unfair advantages in the college admissions process and reaffirmed the need for universities to take steps to ensure a level playing field for all applicants.
Another example is the tech industry’s ongoing struggle with diversity and inclusion. Many tech companies have been criticized for having predominantly white and male workforces, which can lead to a lack of diversity in product development and decision-making. This can result in products that are not accessible or relevant to people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
A third example is the fashion industry’s history of cultural appropriation and insensitive design. Many fashion brands have faced backlash for appropriating traditional clothing and designs from marginalized communities without proper credit or compensation. This can have harmful consequences and perpetuate stereotypes.
Overall, these examples illustrate the importance of socioeconomic sensitivity and diversity in higher education and the need for individuals and organizations to take steps to ensure that they are promoting equity and inclusion. Therefore, the impacts of not sensitizing students include nepotism, discrimination, inequality, disrespect, and the spread of harmful ideas. By prioritizing diversity and inclusivity, we can avoid scandals and create a more just and equitable society where old ideals are not ruminated.
This brings us back to Brown.
Given that human beings tend to form less diverse social circles despite being in a diverse environment, Brown must take active steps to connect people from different backgrounds. Here is what Brown can do to address this issue:
(1) Hold regular (i.e., bi-monthly) meetings to discuss current topics concerning campus life. During these hearings, which can include, for example, 20–30 people from different dorms, a variety of ideas and viewpoints can be exchanged, giving students the opportunity to discuss common issues.
(2) As an alternative to in-person meetings, online communication can help students build a stronger sense of community. This doesn’t necessarily have to be in the form of Zoom meetings, but rather forums or anonymous polls that are easy to access and complete. Not only are they more time efficient, but they can become interactive and engaging for students.
(3) Though requiring considerable preparations, outdoor events can be a great space for students to make new acquaintances and escape their personal social bubble. Such events could include multiple activities, either purely entertaining or informative (i.e., a fair of activist groups on campus).
(4) All university departments, as well as student-run clubs and organizations, must be completely transparent regarding their racial and especially their socioeconomic statistics. For example, having data on the diversity numbers for concentrations or the median income of the households that fraternity members come from would provide insight into the extent of students’ self-segregation. In that way, progress can be made because we would know exactly what needs to be changed.
Among each Brown University graduating class are future leaders of communities across the United States and the world. One day, the decisions that Brown students make will impact a lot more people than a few in Rhode Island. For that reason, Brown is accountable for breaking the sharp lines that define racial and socioeconomic cliques. By interacting with people different from us, we can outgrow ignorance and take active steps to unify our divided world.