Over at The New York Times, Natasha Singer discusses the pros and cons of universities providing incoming students with online technology that helps them select roommates. She does a great job of identifying salient points. But I think it’s important to augment the story by adding some remarks on privacy and prejudice.
One of the technologies Singer focuses on is Roomsync, “a matching app on Facebook…that lets students search for and select their own roomies.” Designed to appeal to a generation “raised on Netflix, Amazon and other recommendation engines,” the tool spins disclosures of personal information into anxiety-minimizing gold: curated lists of “suggested roommates…complete with…names and profile photographs, ranked in order of compatibility.”
As Singer notes, Roomsync (and technologies like it) have lots of benefits: they give students an opportunity to participate directly in a process that can deeply impact what their college experience will be like; they introduce more accuracy into the roommate selection process than typically occurs when parents fill out profile information and—due to idealization and denial—provide unrealistic data; they help students cultivate relationships prior to arriving on campus to begin the school year; and, they decrease the chances of academically destructive conflict occurring early on that can be difficult and costly to remedy.
But as Singer also mentions, there’s a potential downside to automating affinity: “homophily”. Put in more colloquial terms, this is the issue of birds of a feather flocking together. When technology makes it easier for students to select roommates who appear to strongly embody their own values and tastes, freshman can miss out on chances to broaden their horizons. Even worse, they might try to use the tech to prejudicially filter class, race, or sexual orientation.
In general, I’m sympathetic to the concern that customization can be an ally of homogenization and segregation. And, as someone who believes the university should do more than impart vocationally-oriented knowledge and skill, but also prepare students to be citizens of a global world filled with diversity, I worry about efforts that can undermine this charge. However, I still believe that the types of roommate matching technology that Singer covers are good tools.
It’s an understatement to say that dorms don’t offer much privacy. Rooms tend to be small with nearly everything you and your roommate do occurring in plain sight. Throw communal bathrooms into the mix, and there’s precious little breathing room to be found. Add in the stress of doing well at school (which can be especially acute, if you’re accruing massive student debt), and it’s easy to see why students need a safe space where they can let down their hair and recharge.
Moreover, much as we might wish that increased contact between members of different groups would, in itself, be sufficient to eliminate bias, things are more complicated. One of the leading theories of prejudice reduction, the contact hypothesis, stipulates (at least in its classic formulation) that in order for in-groups to revise their views of out-groups, a set of conditions must be present. The personal contact must be carried out by participants of equal status, who share common goals, participate in inter-group cooperation, and receive the support of authorities.
Think of it this way. If you force two people to live together in a dorm room who have deep contempt for some aspect of the other person’s identity, close proximity won’t magically melt away the animosity. Instead, conflict will result.
That’s why sports are a typical illustration of the contact hypothesis. It isn’t as simple as playing on the same team and bonding by sharing the common goal of caring about winning more than personal animosity. Coaches also need to set the tone by treating everyone the same and encouraging players to do so as well.
Like coaches, professors have an important role to play. They can help students learn to better appreciate the value of living and working with people who are different. And, they can impart ethical and political lessons about the rights and interests that chauvinism threatens.
To put this in personal perspective, when I was an undergraduate in the 1990’s, the canon wars raged and course construction was widely understood to involve issues of privilege and power. Students were required to take officially designated diversity classes. And, professors emphasized the importance of avoiding sexist language. Now, I’m not saying that the Binghamton University model was ideal. Like every curriculum, it had its flaws. Still, I like to think I’m a better person for having been exposed to it.
Ultimately, there’s lots of ways universities can maintain active commitments to fostering diversity, both in and out of the classroom. If the education is successful, by the time students graduate they’ll be recognize the importance of diversity for a flourishing democracy.
Disclosure
In Singer’s follow-up piece, “Today’s Students Don’t Have to Suffer if They Hate Their Roomates,” she states that the college I teach at, Rochester Institute of Technology, uses “StarRez, a comprehensive online housing management program that includes a roommate self-selection option for students.” In light of that fact, I want to highlight that I’m solely offering a personal opinion here and not in any way speaking on behalf of the university.
