In 1968, black students at Northwestern took action for survival and self-determination on campus. Then, as now, blacks represented a disproportionately low percentage of the student body and needed specific culturally sensitive interventions to normalize the student experience. The challenge again faced today is whose voice should determine how to obtain what we all want: One Northwestern. Black students and alumni speak with a single voice to say what we have consistently said since 1968: Our voices must be the predominant voice in the discussion regarding the black experience on campus.

The University agreed to specific courses of action in 1968, resulting from the first major action of the protest era on Northwestern’s campus. From May 3-4, 1968, about 100 black students (supported by hundreds of majority students) occupied the Bursar’s office with a list of demands to make existence on campus livable. These were the self-determined views of blacks as to what would work best in the face of perceived and real oppression. The resultant concessions, including increasing admissions and financial aid and the establishment of the Black House, were a covenant without an expiration date, particularly prior to eradicating disparities in the black student experience.

Forty-seven years later, the Black House is a cultural icon. It should be designated a landmark building on campus and continue as a mainstay for African-Americans in the same way Hillel, the Women’s Center and Greek houses exist for other student communities. Furthermore, the Black House should have an autonomous existence beyond the purview of Student Affairs. We believe its future should include expansion to become a Resource and Cultural Center and a home for an archive of the nearly 150-year African-American experience at Northwestern. Northwestern University Black Alumni Association has submitted such a proposal to the administration. However, the Division of Student Affairs has proposed to diminish student space by adding two additional offices for Multicultural Student Affairs. Based on the black community’s response, it is currently engaging in a series of “Listening Sessions” about its proposal. Unfortunately, the presumption of the Listening Sessions is there’s a debate about the ongoing value of the Black House. Furthermore, any recommendations from the sessions’ committee may or may not be adapted at the discretion of the vice president of Student Affairs.

Since 2004, there has been a steady erosion of the Black House. The Department of African-American Student Affairs has been eliminated. The dean and subsequently the director of African-American Students Affairs, has been eliminated. The resources, spaces and services within the Black House explicitly targeted to assist black students have been reduced and replaced with “global support staff” for Multicultural Student Affairs.

Issues of mental health, matriculation, sexual assault and campus safety still remain significant concerns for African-American students, much as was the case in 1968. Blacks report concerns about their student experience, including feelings of isolation and fears related to safety from verbal and physical attacks. The approach of the Student Affairs appears to be to remove the problem by eliminating identity safety under the guise of multiculturalism, under the premise that allocating resources to all groups will benefit and meet the specific needs of African-Americans. Is this a social version of trickle-down economics? Where is the evidence that multiculturalism positively impacts outcomes of interest to African-Americans? Is the University unaware that this approach runs counter to best practices in diversity and inclusion initiatives on college campuses?

These ongoing actions to dilute the importance and ability of the Black House — the single most important symbol of the black experience and contributor to the historic success of blacks at NU — send strong messages:

• 1. NU chooses to abrogate the May 4th agreement.
• 2. NU shirks responsibility for subpar performance in service to this segment of students.
• 3. NU doesn’t value the need for blacks to have a safe haven on campus.

This action removes the safety net that has created thousands of success stories for generations of black NU students. This is unacceptable, whether by intent, design or implementation; these are distinctions without a difference and the subsequent outcomes will be all too predictable.

African-American students and alumni are concerned about outcomes and are past the point where we are willing to allow actions that we understand produce harm to black students. Whether by intent, design or implementation, initiatives furthering conditions that disproportionately disadvantage NU’s black community needs to be reversed. As these things go, institutional racism is oblivious to intent; it’s the outcome that defines its existence. The debate shouldn’t be about the value Black House but a more effective use of it.

We call for NU to meet with student and alumni leadership to discuss the way forward. We want the future success of black students to be because of initiatives at NU, not in spite of a lack support from the school we love.

Jeffrey E. Sterling, MD (WCAS, ’85)
President, Northwestern University Black Alumni Association