The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 3 - 34

Lori D. Patton * Sacha Sharp * Berenice Sánchez

purpose of the living learning community,
while simultaneously failing to recognize the
space might actually benefit Black men, as well
as other residents (Saenz, 2010).
These comments also reveal a clear misunderstanding that people have about segregation, particularly how it stems from White fear,
mistrust, and disregard for Black people and
its enforcement through the law (e.g. Plessy v.
Ferguson). The concept of "Black self re-segregation" should be confusing to the commenter
because it erroneously blames Black people for
segregation and ignores the racist legal forces
that required and enforced segregation. Furthermore, invoking Brown v. Board of Education and a return to the past, as indicated in
the second comment, suggests that segregation is over and Brown was successful. The
commenter fails to acknowledge that while
Brown was intended to legalize integration, it
has been critiqued for falling short of true integration and equality.
The third comment, which references separate drinking fountains, also revises history to
position Black people as responsible for segregation or that Black people "asked" for it.
Neither of the commenters offered historically
accurate statements, or acknowledged segregation was a White creation forced upon Black
people. Moreover, outlawing segregation often
compounded inequality in terms of housing
and schooling opportunities. For example,
Ladson-Billings (2004) maintains the Brown
case was limited because it depicted Black
people as inferior, an ideology that still resonates (see later discussion). She summarized,
"The overriding logic was not only one of Black
inferiority, but the concomitant one of White
superiority and the idea that placing Blacks in
34

the midst of that superiority would be sufficient to create equal education opportunities."
(p. 9). The inequities of the Brown era fuel existing gaps for Black men's college attainment
and success (Frierson, Pearson, & Wyche,
2009; Harper, 2008; Harris & Harper, 2012).
Therefore, initiating UCSH could be viewed as
an opportunity to support these students, but
instead commenters' arguments heavily rely
on segregation as a way to critique and oppose
the initiative.
The theme of segregation was also used to
demonstrate linguistic power. The UCSH was
created to support the Black men at UConn. By
criticizing UCSH using a segregation angle,
commenters attempted to exert power by
shaming Black students and dismissing circumstances that would make having the house
significant in the first place. One commenter
reacted by stating "...the answer of course, segregate your sorry selves...Then blame everyone on
the outside because no one else knows what it's
like to try to fit in." Commenters such as this
not only exercised power through criticizing
UCSH, but also by blaming Black men for
the existence of racist campus environments
and diminishing their experiences to a simple
matter of "fitting in." The commenter used
their position to attack the personhood of Black
male students by labeling them as "sorry." Such
language is dehumanizing and reflective of the
commenter's desires to relegate Black men to
an inferior status. The language also suggests
a state of fragility for commenters in that Black
men were perceived to be on the receiving end
of something to which White men could not
have access, or the sheer disbelief that Black
people would want to segregate themselves
from White people on campus through UCSH.

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 3