Cornell makes a major push each year to admit a diverse student body, a fact that is constantly trumpeted by its published admissions statistics. Yet a funny thing happens between admissions and arrival on campus: a considerable number of minority students reject the randomly sorted dormitories and opt to live in race-based program houses. In light of Cornell’s support for these houses, I wonder if the University’s policies undermine the spirit of diversity and even run afoul of the Constitution.

Despite the close parallels between program houses and affirmative action — both concern questions of race, and both sidestep the dominant paradigm in favor of an alternative solution — the two subjects have largely been separated into autonomous spheres of discussion.

But when underrepresented minorities — largely the beneficiaries of affirmative action — choose to live apart, they also illuminate the oft-overlooked connection between race-based affirmative action and race-based program houses.

Much of the problem stems from a poor understanding of affirmative action policies. In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), Justice Powell flatly rejected the traditional defenses of affirmative action, such as historical deficits, societal discrimination or community needs. As the Court recently reaffirmed in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), “Justice Powell approved the university’s use of race to further only one interest: ‘the attainment of a diverse student body.’”

In 2003, the Court rearticulated the centrality of diversity to policies of affirmative action: “The [University of Michigan Law School’s] policy aspires to ‘achieve that diversity which has the potential to enrich everyone’s education and thus make a … class stronger than the sum of its parts.’” And in its defense, the Law School only “asks [the Court] to recognize, in the context of higher education, a compelling state interest in student body diversity.”

In sum: affirmative action, according to the supreme law of the land, is legitimate if, and only if, it promotes a diverse student body.

By the numbers, our admissions department is admitting an increasingly diverse class each year. The Class of 2010 boasts a record 35 percent minority enrollment rate, up from 30 percent in the Class of 2009. According to the University Factbook, minority admissions rates have steeply increased since 1982: from 514 of 2,785 students, to 952 of 3,238 students this year.

But are these underrepresented minorities actually contributing to a diverse community? At Cornell, a handful of program houses exist with charters devoted specifically to racial ideals. The most notable and controversial of these houses is Ujamaa, a residential hall that was established in 1972 to “celebrate the rich and diverse heritage of Black people,” according to its website.

Consider Cornell’s African American population. About 195 students in last year’s freshman class were black, and facebook.com — which gives a low estimate, since some students are not registered with the website — showed at least 32 of these students as residing in Ujamaa, and another 7 in the Multicultural Living Learning Unit (McLLU). This low estimate shows some 20 percent of the black students in the class living apart.

Because of program housing, under five percent of total students in the regular dorms are African American.

The connection between program houses and affirmative action is a two-way street. It’s not only seen in the residential depletion of minorities by program houses; it’s also demonstrated in the program houses’ dependence on affirmative action.

Imagine a world without affirmative action. At the Michigan Law School, an expert speculated that under a race-blind admissions system, there would be a “‘very dramatic’ negative effect on underrepresented minority admissions.” In 2000, 35 percent of minority applicants were admitted; without affirmative action, he testified that only 10 percent would probably have gotten in. Minorities made up 14.5 percent of that class, but without affirmative action, they would have dropped to only 4 percent.

What if a similar proportion held true at Cornell? Enrollment of black students might drop as low as 2 percent — under 50 black students per class. According to the Residential Director of Ujamaa, 44 students will live there this upcoming year. So for Ujamaa to maintain its current level of black student enrollment, it would need to draw on nearly all of the admitted black population.

When Hunter Rawlings tried to close program houses to first-year students in the mid-90s, he faced opposition because, as Cornell Magazine reported, program houses “rely on freshman housing fees to stay open.” It is not unreasonable to conclude, then, that without affirmative action, Ujamaa would no longer be sustainable.

Ujamaa’s dependence on affirmative action underlines a hard-to-swallow truth: our affirmative action program is currently being twisted to sabotage its very reason for existence. On the one hand, Cornell offers admission to minority students under the pretense of diversity, while on the other hand, it works against diversity by supporting segregated living spaces. Our infrastructure of separation trumps prescribed policies of integration.

Underrepresented minority students, as mandated by the Supreme Court, are given preferential treatment for a single and unambiguous reason: to infuse diversity into college campuses. These advantages create a reciprocal obligation on the part of universities to live up to Justice Powell’s vision of a diverse environment.

Skeptics may point to the Greek system as another bastion of segregation. They are certainly correct. Just consider Sigma Delta Tau’s Junior pledge class, which is not only all white, but save for one or two members, all Jewish, according to one member of the sorority.

The difference is that frats and sororities retain some autonomy from the University and they open their doors only to second-year students. But more importantly, most of the girls in SDT weren’t awarded “plus” factors in the admissions game, because there’s no shortage of white college applicants. Race-based program houses uniquely target freshman students, many of whom were granted admission because of affirmative action.

Diversity isn’t just legal jargon; it is a fundamental tenet of the college experience. I remember my freshman year, when I asked a black classmate why she lived in Ujamaa. Her answer? “Because I don’t like white people.” And I’m reminded of rush last year, when an Asian student — atypical in my mostly white fraternity — decided to pledge our house. His reasoning? His group of friends, whom he had met in his randomly sorted dormitory, was also joining.

There might be a place for Ujamaa at Cornell, and there’s certainly still a need for affirmative action in admissions decisions. But for the sake of diversity (and for that matter, our nation’s laws), at least challenge first-year students to overcome their differences. A single year of residential interaction might go a long way in our uphill battle toward true racial harmony.

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, “If we are to live together in peace, we must come to know each other better.” At Cornell, if we are to know each other better, we must, at least for a short time, live together — whether in peace, Mews, Dickson or Donlon.

Rob Fishman is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at rbf25@cornell.edu Agree to Disagree appears Wednesdays.