Are colleges and universities rediscovering segregation? Multiculturalism as it is practised on many campuses is indeed a separatist enterprise, dedicated to "celebrating diversity" by defining identity in terms of ethnicity (as if people were never more nor less than representatives of a similarly skinned group) and preaching tolerance by outlawing expression that could be construed as "racial harassment."

Suzanne Fields argues that the ethnic theme houses that are so touted by many campuses as signs of their superior commitment to diversity actually reinvent the culture of Jim Crow:

Ethnic houses actually encourage what they decry, by infantilizing students, pampering them in their ethnic insecurities, and creating a divisiveness through racial stereotyping. A Latino student gives away the insidiousness of this approach, describing how he found his blood roots at Amherst: "For me, there's more consciousness of my background as a Latino male," he says. "Before I came to Amherst, I wasn't thinking about race or class or gender or sexual orientation, I was just thinking about people wanting to learn."

UPDATE: A reader writes, "After reading your entry on campus segregation today and then listening to all the things said about Trent Lott, I have to wonder why the old segregationist Dixiecrats are not being hailed for what they really were -- men with a socially progressive vision who were far ahead of their time. Can the George C. Wallace dorm for students of non-color be far away?" Good question. The ironic answer: a good number of people would argue that the George C. Wallace dorm for students of non-color already exists--that, indeed, the entire university system is dedicated to white studies--and that this is precisely the reason why ethnic dorms are needed.

For an account of how ethnic dorms operate at Cornell, see this piece from today's FrontPage.