Black men only: UConn's proposed 'learning community' sparks controversy
As part of its Learning Community Program, the university has established "houses" designed to match students with like-minded peers, in order to foster development and to "make UConn feel like home," according to the school's website. In addition to houses aimed at environmentally-conscious students or nursing majors, for example, a new house under construction will cater to African-American men only.
The SCHOLA2RS House ‒ which stands for Scholastic House Of Leaders who are African American Researchers and Scholars ‒ "is a scholastic initiative to groom, nurture, and train the next generation of leaders to address grand challenges in society through the promotion of academic success in undergraduate programs at the University of Connecticut and in competitive graduate programs," the university said.
The only one of the "learning communities" based on gender or race, the house is scheduled to open in the fall semester of 2016, WTIC reported. SCHOLA2RS will be located in a 200,000-square-foot dorm that will hold more than 700 other students, according to officials connected with the program.
"African American males graduate at a lower rate than their peers," said Dr. Erik Hines, a professor of educational psychology at UConn who focuses on research pertaining to African-American male academic achievement, especially in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). "So the University of Connecticut was forward-thinking in bringing a solution to this issue."
In 2012, the graduation rate for all UConn students was 82.5 percent, while the graduation rate for black males was 54 percent. That was the main impetus to build the new house, according to Hines.
"It is a space for African American men to one, come together and validate their experiences that they may have on campus," Hines added. "Number two, it's also a space where they can have conversation and also talk with individuals who come from the same background who share the same experience."
The unusual move has prompted an outpouring of criticism. On the anonymous subreddit board for "all things UConn," commenters have expressed concern with "identity politics" on college campuses and students that "want to hide in a shell and want people to hand them things." Some are alarmed at the fact that "UConn is considering racially segregated housing," and that the house is leaving out African-American women.
Students and others have pointed out that the housing is optional, and therefore not quite comparable to racially segregated housing. Others have supported the house in light of its goals, which include boosting academic performance of male African-American students.
https://www.rt.com/usa/330645-uconn-black-scholars-housing/
I'm all for giving black men a better chance at success in college, but I don't feel that comfortable with this so-called "learning community". The house isn't entirely separated from other students of race so I wouldn't call it complete segregation, but I am concerned that improving the academic performance of black men involved giving them their own little dorm away from other races. I don't think that's the way to go imo.
What do you all think?
= new reply since forum marked as read
They may be coming from the same weak educational background and need the peer support and access to the same tutors and assistance to succeed.
This makes me go along to get along with free college for everyone.
IF we acknowledge that the majority of black students from inner cities attending in Fall 2017 were deliberately and maliciously cheated out of an equal elementary, middle, and high school education and they will need extra help when they get there -
I'm all for it. Sounds like UConn is preparing for Free College For Everyone to make sure those kids redlined into ghettos are as successful as those who had posh suburban educations.
FYI - my father was a Tuskeegee grad and my uncles and grandfather were Morehouse grads.
Being in a segregated dorm didn't hurt them. Black people tend to reach back and pull each other up "behind the back of America" and these connections we make at University last throughout our lives.
As much as America thinks it is ready for us to get rid of these connections and networking tools - America is wrong. I'll be 43 in two weeks and even if they legislates our organizations away - we will defy this country. I will make a point of forming the underground railroad to The Links membership. 
Sc-hola-two-r-s 
what does it mean?
If black or white or Asian people want to live with others who look like them, they have the right to do that. I'm against social engineering projects like forced busing, which seems to usually do more harm than good and often actually lead to "white flight".
In reality segregation happens whether you want to make it legal or not. US cities tend to be racially segregated.
It had long been rumored that Geno would move across Gampel to coach the men's team after Calhoun hung it up. But then, Kevin Ollie came roaring out of the gate with a national title! 
was cheering them on, altho I don't like sports generally...I remember the greats like Sue Bird...all the Wonder Years...
I have long believed that the success of the women's team motivated the men to snap out of their years-long choke-in-the-second-round streak and finally win it all. 
"Freedom of association" would be where students get to pick themselves where they want to live, and who they want to live with, without the need for any racial enforcement by the university authorities ("sorry Joe, you look too white to me to be allowed to live there!"
Jim Crow was a caste system set up to harm black people and thoroughly abhorrent.
I don't rule out voluntary segregation under all possible circumstances. If there's a desire for it and it does not harm or disadvantage one group over another.
Our democratic politics are based on an assumption we all have the same interests, but we now know this is false. Some groups of people simply don't get along. Segregation is probably the best solution. It's conservative to oppose segregation under all circumstances.
The important thing is that neither the government nor civil society can 'unmake racism'. There is no tolerance pill, which can cure an individual’s negative and hostile attitudes to specific groups. Anders Breivik and Dylann Roof are here to stay. So is hostility to specific minorities, and aggressive expression of that hostility. So are the fanboys: some people will continue to admire Breivik and Roof, and to see their actions as justified.
We can not make people be nice to each other. Despite all its surveillance powers, the United States government can't stop them killing each other either. Nor can European governments, even though the killing may be less frequent, and take a different form.
People hate other people. People want to kill other people. They say so openly. Social media made it possible for each individual to broadcast their attitudes to the world, and the result was a flood of hate and death threats.
What the state can do, is keep them apart. Paradoxically, the fact that individuals hate groups more than other single individuals, makes it easier to separate them. If a white person hates blacks, the state can keep that person away from blacks. If a Christian hates gays, the state can keep that person away from gays. If a feminist hates men, the state can keep her away from men. And it works both ways: if a gay man hates homophobes, the state can keep that person away from homophobes.
I see in America an inability to confront the issue of hatred and hostility. I see platitude after platitude, but a general unwillingness to analyse society and politics. I see millions of reactions, but apparently none of them innovative. Everyone says roughly what you would expect them to say, and they will say it again, after the next racially motivated mass shooting.
Segregation is probably the answer to racism.
This is a Peace Wall in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It segregates Catholics from Protestants. Together with guaranteed Catholic and Protestant governments, it means both groups have their interests represented and they are kept from harming one another.
Apparently we're going to make Wallace's dream come true under the guise of progressive thought. 
Only at a university could something this stupid be considered enlightened.
I'm scratching my head b/c students with learning problems come in all colors, shapes and both genders. If this is truly a learning-centered approach to housing, why not open it to all (women, white, purple with spots, etc.) who need a quiet, structured learning environment?
It's no secret that students with low standardized test scores and poor academic skills who are at risk are those who come from economically disadvantaged homes/communities. Research has shown this time and again across the nation. White students, Hispanics and women come from poverty, too.
I'm concerned. UConn and the state of CT could only convince me this is a good idea if they opened it up to all who need and want it, and design the building and any programming inside to enhance learning. That means having tutors available, as well as having quiet spaces to study.
But as always, the main issue is why the state, which is hundreds of million$ in the hole, is not helping families and communities at risk but instead is building a huge structure to house African American males...is this a ploy to give black male athletes a boost but not call it that?
Facts have no place in this discussion! 
Seriously, though, thank you for adding relevant information, including your post about retention and graduation rates being bettered.
Have no choice - we have dark faces and America is experienced differently as black people.
People ID me as such an treat me as such - its not like I could ever get away with self identifying as blonde light eyed Eastern European. I mean I could but I'd be crazy to try.
Using facts! 
I just think it is possible to justify it.
